Interesting. Do you think its actually a forceful argument? Or can it be weaseled out of through whatever ad hoc "patents last 15 years" logic?
Sieben, yes, if you take IP arguments seriously, your argument makes sense; but of course, the IP advocates, who are confused and/or disingenuous, will find some ad hoc way to weasel out of it.
Stephan Kinsella [email protected] www.StephanKinsella.com
I wonder if Onar and other IP advocates realize that, in a Galambos style world where all ideas are property, they would barely write one blog post in defense of IP without bankrupting themselves?
On a somewhat unrelated note, I know many here will appreciate this article at Cracked:
"...the publisher is resorting to what experts call FARTS--Forced ARTificial Scarcity. Or they would call it that, if they were as awesome at naming things as I am."
Onar Åm, thank you for bringing to light the vicious vacuity of the libertarian branch. I have been wobbling from libertarianism to classical liberalism over the past two years, and after reading this thread I know that I will never return.
If all it takes is one article based entirely on fallacies and deliberate misunderstandings of the anti-IP position, then it won't take much to convert you back. God forbid you actually read something that makes sense.
Which is precisely why most IP advocates identify that there needs to be a complexity to the idea to claim ownership. However, I have as yet to hear where you can draw an infinitely thin boundary denoting IP on one side and whatever they deem as too simple to be IP on the other.
From what I have gathered, many (most?) IP advocates would claim that simply changing a single word in someone else's works and claiming it as my own is infringement on their IP. How much then must I alter before it is legitimately my IP? Secondly, why that amount?
kwalla:Onar Åm, thank you for bringing to light the vicious vacuity of the libertarian branch. I have been wobbling from libertarianism to classical liberalism over the past two years, and after reading this thread I know that i will never return.
What a weak mind.
What BiPolar said, and also what Jeffrey mentioned on his blog post. Where to draw the line of what is an original/complex idea? Where to draw the line of how long a patent should last? As Kinsella pointed out, IP rights are utterly random in their details.
As Kinsella pointed out, IP rights are utterly random in their details.
I got less involved in these talks because of this. Unable to cope with the fact that physical property rights and intellectual property rights are incompatible, the pro-IP people take IP to be the supreme of the two. From there on, you don't have a general rule as to what is or isn't IP. You have to argue it on a case-by-case basis, and it's always defended by an endless list of assertions.
Blueline976: kwalla:Onar Åm, thank you for bringing to light the vicious vacuity of the libertarian branch. I have been wobbling from libertarianism to classical liberalism over the past two years, and after reading this thread I know that i will never return. What a weak mind.
Don't make it personal.
liberty student:Don't make it personal.
My apologies.
The problem with this argument is that it also argues against private property. (If I own a piece of IP, why can I not do what I want with it, in the same manner I can with "real" property?) If there is no clear owner of property, all the other arguments become subject to similar false principles. (i.e. "since Ford built your car, Ford can tell you exactly how to use it" and so forth) The arguments in favor of IP laws I've heard thus far strike me as more fascist than "libertarian".
BiPolarMoment: I wonder if Onar and other IP advocates realize that, in a Galambos style world where all ideas are property, they would barely write one blog post in defense of IP without bankrupting themselves? Which is precisely why most IP advocates identify that there needs to be a complexity to the idea to claim ownership. However, I have as yet to hear where you can draw an infinitely thin boundary denoting IP on one side and whatever they deem as too simple to be IP on the other. From what I have gathered, many (most?) IP advocates would claim that simply changing a single word in someone else's works and claiming it as my own is infringement on their IP. How much then must I alter before it is legitimately my IP? Secondly, why that amount?
I would like to know the answer to this as well.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Blueline976: liberty student:Don't make it personal. My apologies.
No worries. The other party was certainly fishing for it.
I don't like the argument from ad-hoc; real property also suffers from some ad-hocness in the homesteading and abandonment phase, comparably with IP, even if it's better defined and easier to determine possession and use.
Sieben: "Arguments for IP are themselves IP. Therefore, advocates of IP cannot use pro IP arguments without the original creator's permission. If I recall correctly, it was some King in the 17th century. Don't violate his property rights!" Yep. I argued somethign similar here: An Objectivist IP Argument for Taxation http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/02/24/an-objectivist-ip-argument-for-taxation/
Yep. I argued somethign similar here: An Objectivist IP Argument for Taxation http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/02/24/an-objectivist-ip-argument-for-taxation/
First of all, as I answered in a reply to Jeffrey Tucker the time limitation of intellectual property is to prevent the rise of feudal society:
http://blog.mises.org/14286/can-moral-rights-expire-by-law/comment-page-1/#comment-732344
There are other limitations to intellectual property for similar reasons. Just like there are limitations to what you can use your physical property for (such as making a prison around your neighbors) there are limitations to IP. If IP becomes a prison which quelches the freedom of self-determination of an individual, then it has no moral basis. The same is true for slavery, for instance, which is an excessive kind of physical property right.
Second, I tend to agree that the founders of a proper state are morally entitled to something akin to royalties for a certain period. Just like with ordinary IP this will of course be time-limited in order to prevent a feudal society with taxes. This would give an excellent incentive for private entrepreneurs to buy up land (or to homestead uninabiheted land) and create a proper state there. When the initial period of setting up the state is complete the entrepreneur will benefit for instance from the increase in land value when he sells it at a much higher price to citizens of the new state.
There is nothing ad hoc about being reality oriented. How do you know that something is a violation? Well, there isn't a divine list of crimes up in heaven. You have to actually investigate the facts and see if they fit the bill, and in what sense. This is hard work and requires engaging reality. People find new ways of violating self-ownership all the time, and to identify these things are not automatic. The same hard work that was required to recognize that using a gun to threaten people is a violation and to set up a fence around someone's property is a violation, one needs to do hard work to identify the boundaries of IP. The nature of IP doesn't just reveal itself in a flash of revelation from the gods. It requires thought and observation. That's not ad hoc. That's called being part of reality.
Onar Am: "I tend to agree that the founders of a proper state are morally entitled to something akin to royalties for a certain period."
hahha, he admits my argument is right. hahahahhaha
Onar Am:There is nothing ad hoc about being reality oriented.
Oh yes anytime someone disagrees with you they're clearly disconnected from reality. Because your the arbiter on what is or is not reality?
Onar Am:How do you know that something is a violation?
This is a question you need to ask yourself, and research the origins of property, exchange, and economics in general.
Bottom line, your second paragraph here shows that you have a strong opinion regarding Pro-IP, but are generally how economics applies to concepts which are not scarce. Before you can decide whether IP makes sense or not, you must first understand what property.
Start with praxeology, human action, and work from there.
nskinsella:Onar Am: "I tend to agree that the founders of a proper state are morally entitled to something akin to royalties for a certain period." hahha, he admits my argument is right. hahahahhaha
So we would be serfs, and that would be the moral/ethical thing in his opinion. Well position exposed to it's fullest. Wow.
Onar Åm:There are other limitations to intellectual property for similar reasons. Just like there are limitations to what you can use your physical property for (such as making a prison around your neighbors) there are limitations to IP.
Onar Åm:If IP becomes a prison which quelches the freedom of self-determination of an individual, then it has no moral basis. The same is true for slavery, for instance, which is an excessive kind of physical property right.
Onar Åm:Second, I tend to agree that the founders of a proper state are morally entitled to something akin to royalties for a certain period. Just like with ordinary IP this will of course be time-limited in order to prevent a feudal society with taxes.
Onar Åm:This would give an excellent incentive for private entrepreneurs to buy up land (or to homestead uninabiheted land) and create a proper state there
Åm's example of robbery: "Isn't it a horrible, horrible restriction on your private property usage not to be able to use your own gun as you please?" I don't think this example can be compared to the anti-IP argument that copyright is a claim to the entire universe. When you rob someone, you violate property rights. Yes, it restricts your usage of this planet when you're not allowed to burn down my house. Rather, the question is whether property rights should be extended to "products of the mind". And Åm thinks it should. And if it should, the following quote makes perfect sense: "Just like there are limitations to what you can use your physical property for [...] there are limitations to IP."
Should property rights be extended to products of the mind? Based on the non-aggression principle; no. But Åm isn't using that as the only starting point. If you base your arguments on the man made non-aggression principle, why can't you base it on another principle as well? They're both arbitrary. (I'll probably get enemies from both sides now). "Onar Åm, thank you for bringing to light the vicious vacuity of the libertarian branch. I have been wobbling from libertarianism to classical liberalism over the past two years, and after reading this thread I know that i will never return." How many times have you said this during your "wobbling"? Regarding the hacking scenario (which is a legitimate concern): There are physical changes being made on the hard drive when you post a reply on these boards. Why are you allowed to make these changes? Because Mises.org has explicitly told you so. But what if they haven't? Is it enough that the webmaster has implied that you can make these changes? If so: What if you find an exploit - one that isn't very hard to find due to the webmaster's ignorance. Then you could argue that the webmaster has made intrusion possible - just as he made posting possible. No? Ok, where's the line between finding an exploit in the webserver software, and guessing the URL to the webmaster's "panic button": index.asp?delete_everything=yes
Am I right in saying that this only takes effect if you 'use' the state? What would it mean for you to 'use' the state? Do you have any examples? Or is it just by virtue of the existence of the state that we must pay royalties?
Could you clarify?
He's saying that because the state is the product of ideas, everyone actually owes John Locke and David hume their taxable income.
dnixx wrote the following post at Tue, Oct 19 2010 12:53 AM:
I don't think this example can be compared to the anti-IP argument that copyright is a claim to the entire universe. When you rob someone, you violate property rights.
My example was to reveal a common libertarian fallacy, namely to assume the position that one is trying to defend and then using this position as an argument to defend one's position. Libertarians often say "IP is a violation of property rights because I can't use my book freely!" Here they are assuming their own position, that IP is not a property right and then using it as an argument against IP. That is precisely why I say that libertarians deny the existence of information (and the mind's role in creating it). They simply do not factor it into their argument. My gun-example is an attempt to lure out the hidden assumption and denial of information in their argument.
Rather, the question is whether property rights should be extended to "products of the mind". And Åm thinks it should.
Precisely! So it's not an argument to say that IP is a violation of property right, because we are discussing what those property rights ARE.
Onar Am:Precisely! So it's not an argument to say that IP is a violation of property right, because we are discussing what those property rights ARE.
And in the process re-defining what property actually is and how it applies, into situations where it was never needed to begin with. Resulting in a process of creating artificial scarcity, where there is none.
Should property rights be extended to products of the mind? Based on the non-aggression principle; no. But Åm isn't using that as the only starting point. If you base your arguments on the man made non-aggression principle, why can't you base it on another principle as well? They're both arbitrary. (I'll probably get enemies from both sides now)
But I think this is where the disagreements come from.
Sieben:He's saying that because the state is the product of ideas, everyone actually owes John Locke and David hume their taxable income.
It takes a particular sort of nerd to get a comment like this. I lol'd. Twice.
Onar Åm:Libertarians often say "IP is a violation of property rights because I can't use my book freely!"
Well, that's a bit of a strawman. What libertarians say, is that if I have a property right in my book, and you claim you have an intellectual property right in that book, and your right supercedes mine, then I don't really have a property right in that book, now do I?
There are numerous challenges posted above. I would like to see you try to respond to some of them, or to Jeffrey's blog post challenging your claim that rights expire.
Off you go with the Objectivist!
IP has two posible defenses:
Utilitarian: It's best for the society (ie a collectivist reasoning).
Moral: It's morally right that you should own the product of your effort. (Lockean defence)
The Utilitarian defense has been completely destroyed by Kinsella and others.
The Moral defense contains a grain of truth (you are indeed the owner of your thoughts), but by attempting to use (state) force to impede others of using similar/identical ideas they overstep bounds. Ofcourse if you accept the right to exclude others, it leads directly to Galambos' position where there is an invioable right of the "first" thinker to the "fruits of his labour" forever on the same line as physical property (in fact Galambos logically point out that ideas are primary property, since nothing could have been created if someone did not first THINK of the ACTION that "mixes labour with nature", hence all physical objects are of secondary nature and naturally can only be rightfully owned by paying a fee to the original thinker or his descendants.
Since even Objectivist realize the consequences of Galambos logical development of their moral defense of IP. So what do they do?
Well, time-limits are borrowed from the Utilitarian defence, not because it's morally correct, but because it is convenient.
From the original blogpost (http://onarki.vgb.no/2010/10/the-basis-of-intellectual-property-right/) answers:
Onar in responding to an enthusiastic follower that suggest copyright (ie IP) should last forever responds:
"Det jeg (og Rand) altså må vise er at en evigvarende copyright er rettighetskrenkende."
Which translated to English: "What I (and Rand) must show is that perpetual copyright is violating rights"
Indeed!!!!!!!!!
Please do, but please use facts, argument and logic instead of cheap metaphors.
Further to the article I just have to call attention to the following:
1. Onar makes claims without any data or references to back them up, and expect them to be accepted as fact
2. There is an astounding lack of coherent arguments and logic
3. There is an equally astounding use of metaphors, both in the article and later comments. Especially the invalid substitution of IP for real property. Use of metaphors are generally a sign of someone that does not have fact and logic on his side, and so must resort to such cheap oratory tricks.
4. He assumes what he sets out to prove (that IP is real property, and not an artificial property of a stategranted monopoly) and uses that to "prove" his point
5. When refering to IP he consistently uses Copyright as example, instead of the much less defensible (more damaging) Patent System. (Albeit in truth us opponents tend to use the same ploy in reverse).
I on the other hand, not only accept intellectual property (no capital letters), what is more I do not accept any artificial time-limit to my ownership of my intellectual property. It is mine until it either "returns to the state of nature" (ie I forget) just like with physical property, or until I sell it (and if I wish to limit any "copying" I shall include condition to that effect and penalties in the case of breach. That is private contract law is sufficient to protect my intellectual property) or give it away. What I do not request is that the state aid me to obtain monopoly profits by using violence against 3rd parties based on them getting similar/identical ideas later than I did.
MrSchnapps wrote the following post at Tue, Oct 19 2010 12:57 AM:
Onar Am: "I tend to agree that the founders of a proper state are morally entitled to something akin to royalties for a certain period." Am I right in saying that this only takes effect if you 'use' the state? What would it mean for you to 'use' the state? Do you have any examples? Or is it just by virtue of the existence of the state that we must pay royalties? Could you clarify?
Thanks for asking intelligent and legitimate questions.
I wasn't really planning to introduce more concepts into this melting pot of confused arguments here at Mises.org but I will give it a shot, since you seem to be quite genuinely interested in discussing these issues. My example about private entrepreneurs were not so much an example of IP (as someone pointed out) as to a clearcut example of how it IS legitimate for private enterprise to make money off of creating a state (which does involve intellectual work, e.g. producing a law). But in most cases this is not how states are created. They usually already exist with people already living there. Is it legitimate to impose a royalty on the people living there for the innovation of creating the state? No, that's not an appropriate way of doing it, especially since there are so many viable alternatives. One existing option is through simple copyright. John Locke published his book "Treatise on civil government," and although I don't think this book was copyrighted (and that copyright wasn't really an issue back then) he was still able to make some money off of his intellectual work through sales of the book.
But clearly in my view this is too limited a means of making money off of great intellectual work. Therefore I am working on enhancing IP with a new concept altogether which I call Academic Property. I conceived of this in a different context (during debates on the availability of climate data and the peer review process) but the concept applies broadly. I operate with different kinds of academic property rights:
- scientific data - discoveries - ideas (scientific theories, algorithms, inventions)
Although they are implemented slightly differently, they all have a common theme: USE is unrestricted and in the open domain. However, the owner can demand royalties from PUBLICATIONS. In this sense, this property right is the exact opposite of patents, and in my view it solves all the problems of patents. Patents still have their use, but I think that this type of property right will be far more popular than patents, and the preferred type of property in most cases. Notice that although academic property resembles copyright there are no restrictions on copying and distribution. Academic property is not an exclusive distribution right as copyright is. The way it works is this: whenever someone PUBLICIZES something using the above mentioned academic property, they pay a royalty to the owner, for that publication. Let's look at the subtle differences between these three types of property.
1. scientific data
Academic property of scientific data means that anyone can use a data set in a scientific paper, but they have to pay a royalty for the data when the paper is published. The owner of scientific data owns the data, BUT NOT THE SOURCE. This means that if someone wants to map the human genome, then they are free to get academic property rights to that specific genome data, but someone else can go to the same genome and map it out and ALSO acquire academic property rights to THEIR version of the genome data, even if they are identical. (They have to document that they actually have done the work of mapping out the genome). In this way many different data sets of the same source may coexist. This type of academic property right has a long life time since anyone can go back to the original source and make their own data set.
2. scientific discoveries
Unlike scientific data, scientific discoveries can only be made once, and hence the academic ownership of scientific discoveries is EXCLUSIVE. No-one else can acquire discovery rights to a particular discovery other than the first one who registers it. Like patents the novelty of discoveries wane quickly and therefore discovery rights should have approximately the same lifetime as patents, about 20 years. It is also quite possible that discovery rights have an initial "novelty" phase of perhaps one year, where slightly different rules apply when the discovery is totally unknown to all. Discovery of life on Mars could be an example of such a discovery right. This is a major news story, and if this discovery was reported, say, 1 billion times in the news and the royalty was 25 cents per publication, then the discovery would generate 250 million dollars in revenue to the discoverer. Less news-flashy, but equally important is the discovery of new genes. This is different from scientifc data property, because that is only a protection of the data itself, and does not include the meaning of that data. If someone discovers a gene that codes for, say, diabetes, then he can get an academic discovery right to it, and all scientific publications in the next 20 years or so that reference it or use it will have to pay royalties. This solves the problem of biotech companies patenting genes. Patents are obviously not appropriate for that and should never be used for discoveries. Discovery rights only pertains to discoveries, not to inventions.
3. Ideas (scientific theories, algorithms, inventions)
Any article can be academically property protected. What one needs to do then is to follow the due dilligence process of a scientific paper (making appropriate references to the litterature etc.) and then register it. By so doing you are also becoming part of the academic property network of royalties. YOU have to pay royalties to scientific references you make to other academically protected papers, and you will also receive royalties when you are referenced. This includes publication outlets at large (newspapers, magazines, school books etc.) but not private conversation and informal publications such as blogs. Basically then you are putting your ideas out there and everyone is free to USE them and there are no restrictions on who can reference, copy and publicize your work as long as it is credited and that you receive royalty. This is a great alternative to patents for most inventors. They don't have to actually implement and sell their invention in order to make money off of it. It suffices that it is talked about. In this way, important inventions, scientific theories, algorithms etc. get their due credit, not just academically but also economically.
I think it would be appropriate for innovators of law to acquire academic property rights to their advances, and when states use these innovations in the law the states have to pay royalties (just like states have to pay for guns or cars). Notice that this separates the question of WHO gets the money and HOW they are collected. A state SHOULD be financed voluntarily by donations, not by taxes, and the royalties to the philosophical and legal innovators are just part of the cost of running the state. So even if the royalties are legally required, it does not imply the use of force on its citizens since the state is financed voluntarily.
Notice however, that although some last longer than others no academic property rights last forever for the reason discussed previously: information does not exist independently of the mind and it requires mental work to animate it and process it. Therefore with time as the information is diffused through the culture the information becomes more and more mixed with the mental work of others than the originator and therefore the rights have an expiry date. This is especially true for innovations, discoveries, theories and inventions.
dnixx wrote the following post at Tue, Oct 19 2010 1:37 AM:
Should property rights be extended to products of the mind? Based on the non-aggression principle; no.
It's disappointing to hear you say this just after I've explained why this assumes the property you are trying to defend. You're assuming a materialist position. IF intellectual property has a real foundation then certainly property right should be extended to products of the mind and it would NOT be a violation of the non-aggression principle. In fact, if intellectual property is morally sound it is a violation of the non-aggression principle to NOT have intellectual property rights.
But Åm isn't using that as the only starting point. If you base your arguments on the man made non-aggression principle, why can't you base it on another principle as well? They're both arbitrary. (I'll probably get enemies from both sides now)
Well, I agree that the non-aggression principle is arbitrary and that is not what i base my argument on. I start with egoism, i.e. the principle of self-interest. This is not arbitrary. Life is the ultimate value and all values presume life. This combined with the fact that we humans are 1) rational and 2) social beings results in the non-aggression principle as the most important DERIVATIVE principle that follows from egoism. However, since egoism is primary there ARE cases where aggression is moral, and that is the case of emergencies. If you are out on a cold mountain and you are surprised by a horrible storm it is moral for you to break into a cabin to save your life, even though that is an act of aggression. This will not be a crime, so long as you make up for your damages after you have recovered from the emergency.
I've tried to answer them all, and I've also replied to Jeffrey's blog. See here:
Hi Onar,
I was wondering if you happened to see my critique of your blog post that I posted in your thread. I'm very interested to see a response to it from you. Thanks!
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Here's a question that just brought up for me LS. And I mean this honestly, it's not a trap, or an attack or anything. This website is not physical property, how could one ban someone from it without appealing to some kind of right to informational/intellectual property?
Here's a question that just brought up for me LS. And I mean this honestly, it's not a trap, or an attack or anything.
This website is not physical property, how could one ban someone from it without appealing to some kind of right to informational/intellectual property?
The server space on which the forum exists is finite and exclusive, and a property right in it is therefore possible.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
"What I (and Rand) must show is that perpetual copyright is violating rights"
To which Onar responds elsewhere (http://blog.mises.org/14286/can-moral-rights-expire-by-law/comment-page-1/#comment-732344):
"The question then is WHY IP needs to be time limited, and I didn’t answer that because it is a big topic, but the short answer is: to prevent a feudal society. IP is unlike physical property in that it requires some other party to mix his mental labor with the natural state. That is, a book must be *read* to have value and reading is mental labor. Well, if IP lasted forever then this would correspond to the situation in feudal times where the serfs only *rented* the property, even if they cultivated the land for generations. Debt cannot be inherited, and so after about one generation the mental labor put into animating a piece of intellectual property results in the dissolution of that property. That’s the short version."
But Onar,
IP is NOT like feudalism, what is more the problem you identify in Feudalism really wasn't the problem of feudalism.
How can you object to a landowner (having acquired land legally acording to Lockean priciples) rent it out to his tenant, and then his decendants continue to rent the property to the decendants of the original tenant for all eternity (renovating the contract naturally with the passing of each generation)? If they so do voluntarily it might seem to some of us that both sides benefit.
Are you maybe for timelimits on physical property too? At least it would be coherent with your IP-position.
On the other hand, maybe you'd be as kind as to provide the long version (without any more false analogies please!)
PS FYI the problem with feudalism was:
1. Wrongful title to land (ie created by law or King's grant, not Locke)
2. Serfs were not free to do as they pleased (move, change job, etc)
PS2. Sorry, I just noticed you are right! IP is like feudalism, both are wrongful title (ie created by law or King's grant, not Locke). Shall we start over?
But of course the much better answer was that I had to agree to the forum rules when I signed on.
Someone had to own those servers before they required you to agree to those rules.
Onar Åm: It's disappointing to hear you say this just after I've explained why this assumes the property you are trying to defend. You're assuming a materialist position. IF intellectual property has a real foundation then certainly property right should be extended to products of the mind and it would NOT be a violation of the non-aggression principle. In fact, if intellectual property is morally sound it is a violation of the non-aggression principle to NOT have intellectual property rights.
I forgot to add that it depends on what you define as property. However, that wasn't my point, but thanks for clearing it up.
I wanted to know your premises, which you also explained.
"Once an idea becomes public knowledge, it is not scarce anymore."
More importantly, once an idea enters the head of another, it is no longer exclusively the idea of the person who came up with it, and the idea's originator must claim ownership of the contents of another person's own mind in order to attempt exclusive ownership of it. To prevent a person from acting in expression of an idea which he has obtained from another person is to utterly destroy his right to use his own actual, physical property. Furthermore, as Kinsella (I think) has pointed out, the originator must implicitly claim ownership over all physical matter in the Universe lest someone, somewhere, use a bit of it to express his original idea.
Such a notion, besides being utterly impracticable, is definitively anti-property. Property rights exist to prevent/solve disputes; IP creates disputes where they did not exist before. Mr. Åm has identified, at least by implication, that there exists a dichotomy between actual property and intellectual property, and has chosen the latter at the expense of the former. If you do not choose likewise, you are dismissed as a "materialist", and regarded as "evil" - an argumentum ad hominem which is no more useful in upholding the pro-IP position than Marx and Engel's dismission of "bourgeoise" and "bourgeois logic" was to the position of Marxist communism.
"What harm is there to the author of a book if you copy the book (and there was no contract signed stating you would not copy it)? "
None. The only thing that he is being deprived of is potential, future profit. But one cannot own potential, future profit as it does not exist. It is a hypothetical possibility, but one cannot own it until and unless it becomes present and real.
The only thing that he is being deprived of is potential, future profit. But one cannot own potential, future profit as it does not exist. It is not even an idea; it is a hypothetical possibility.
I will just quote this...for bookmarking and some laughs..
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)